In this thread below, xl1200r described Hugger orange as bland, boring and flat. So to prove his point wrong that the majority on this forum would actually prefer Hugger orange versus what GM is currently offering as orange, I am creating this poll.. To me IOM looks too red, but that is my opinion and don't let it sway your vote.

Fbodfather pointed out that the lack of metallic appearance makes Hugger Orange less appealing on the Camaro. Classic Camaros don't have the same lines as the new ones. With more definition, a color should be applied that makes the lines pop. I trust fbodfather's judgement.

Fbodfather pointed out that the lack of metallic appearance makes Hugger Orange less appealing on the Camaro. Classic Camaros don't have the same lines as the new ones. With more definition, a color should be applied that makes the lines pop. I trust fbodfather's judgement.

Well then why can't a metallic Hugger orange be created then? Either way, I would prefer ordering a non-metallic hugger orange than any other color offered. Chrysler has a metallic hugger orange in their lineup so there should be no excuse. And if I do say so myself, the concept convertible camaro had a metallic hugger orange on it if I'm not mistaken..

It seems another Camaro forum also had a poll about wether or not hugger orange should be offered.

I agree 100%. As soon as I found out the Camaro was going into production I knew I wanted Hugger Orange, but they offered IOM instead. That color dosen't do it for me. So next I wanted bright blue. I looked through the colors, and they offered Dark blue, and some half breed blue/purple/teal mess called Aqua Blue Metallic. So theres letdown number 2. I would have ordered by now had either Hugger orange or a bright blue been offered.

Well then why can't a metallic Hugger orange be created then? Either way, I would prefer ordering a non-metallic hugger orange than any other color offered. Chrysler has a metallic hugger orange in their lineup so there should be no excuse. And if I do say so myself, the concept convertible camaro had a metallic hugger orange on it if I'm not mistaken..

It seems another Camaro forum also had a poll about wether or not hugger orange should be offered.

They would name it something else, and then the purists would get angry that it isn't glossy like they remember it, and we'll have more polls posted about whether Camaro5 users like Hugger Orange or Hugger Orange Metallic. Basically, we'll end up in the same place as we are right now.

They would name it something else, and then the purists would get angry that it isn't glossy like they remember it, and we'll have more polls posted about whether Camaro5 users like Hugger Orange or Hugger Orange Metallic. Basically, we'll end up in the same place as we are right now.

I disagree.. Show me any challenger forum where people dislike the metallic Hugger Orange on the new Challenger?? Yes there will be some purists, however the vast majority of enthusiasts by a large margin would choose Metallic Hugger Orange over Inferno Orange Metallic every time it is polled. That should tell GM something. If GM is waiting for that color to be released only with the convertible, then so be it, however it still should be offered as the more popular color at launch..

I'm honestly at a loss with the colors GM is offering on this car. You can always expect Red, Black, and White. Silver is nice because it looks like the concept. yellow is a nice choice and should have been offered on the 4th gens. After that though there is a significant drop off in the colors. I know GM dosent want to paint itself into the corner making the car totally retro, but many retro colors were very nice, do not look dated at all, and would have fit the Camaro nicely. My 1st 2 choices would have been Lemans Blue, and Hugger Orange.

Could you have picked a worse photo for Inferno Orange Metallic? Try pics of same quality and resolution for a fair comparison. I refuse to vote until that's fixed.

IMO a color should look good in any picture in any light. There shouldn't be a "worse photo". Why settle for a color that only looks good some of the time when GM could come up with a bright orange color that looks good all of the time like other manufacturers? Are you only going to show your car off to people in your driveway at 4:00 in the afternoon when there are no clouds in the sky and the sun is shining because that is when the sun hits it just right to make the car look good?

IMO a color should look good in any picture in any light. There shouldn't be a "worse photo". Why settle for a color that only looks good some of the time when GM could come up with a bright orange color that looks good all of the time like other manufacturers?

Seriously? You're telling me there's no such things as good or bad photos? Alllllrighty then.

__________________

We are the early orderers...we are GM's voluntary guinea pigs and their free source of feedback. How will we be thanked?

IMO a color should look good in any picture in any light. There shouldn't be a "worse photo". Why settle for a color that only looks good some of the time when GM could come up with a bright orange color that looks good all of the time like other manufacturers? Are you only going to show your car off to people in your driveway at 4:00 in the afternoon when there are no clouds in the sky and the sun is shining because that is when the sun hits it just right to make the car look good?

my comment was aimed at the equality of quality of the photos, not whether or not each color only looked good in a certain setting.

...and by the way, just to show how pictures can play with the color...

Look at the first two photos in this thread of the '01 and the '69. They don't even appear to be same shade of orange. Infact, the car in the BRIGHTER lighting looks DARKER in the pictures. Same happens to IOM.

...and by the way, just to show how pictures can play with the color...

Look at the first two photos in this thread of the '01 and the '69. They don't even appear to be same shade of orange. Infact, the car in the BRIGHTER lighting looks DARKER in the pictures. Same happens to IOM.

The tail close-up shows more orange.
Camera, lighting, it all makes a BIG difference....Like home movies vs. Hollywood...Mine were taken mid-day mostly cloudy.

...and by the way, just to show how pictures can play with the color...

Look at the first two photos in this thread of the '01 and the '69. They don't even appear to be same shade of orange. Infact, the car in the BRIGHTER lighting looks DARKER in the pictures. Same happens to IOM.

Ofcourse all of these colors will look different under different lighting. What you pointed out is precisely why I posted those two representations of Hugger orange on older model Camaro's so there would be no doubt that was the color being compared. Metallic color's look nice and IOM is a nice pleasing color. However to me at least it is more red in color than orange. If you ask a child what color they see when looking at the car, I guarantee you they will say red. Show them Hugger orange and they see orange.. I would like to see plain hugger orange or even metallic hugger orange as a color option on the camaro. In today's day and age, metallic hugger orange would be just fine and you get the best of both worlds as a mix between the old and the new..

And you also can't use a child's mind to judge anything. In high school I drove a 1978 Monte Carlo that was painted the exact same color as a Minilla Folder, and my 3 year old sister called it the "orange car".

And you also can't use a child's mind to judge anything. In high school I drove a 1978 Monte Carlo that was painted the exact same color as a Minilla Folder, and my 3 year old sister called it the "orange car".

So you're saying a metallic hugger orange would get your vote, like the convertible concept below might be?